Hi, We could come back to an idea we had a while ago: introducing annotation aliasing or macros (as Mike called it). It would allow us to define an annotation say @UiProperty that means the same as @Inject @Bound @DataField. We could extend that concept to also include annotation values and then define @RequireAuthentication to mean @InterceptedCall(SecurityInterceptor.class). This would mainly be an addition to errai-codegen. The existing generators would stay the same.
The reason the current interceptor solution is not aligned with CDI is that it focuses on remote calls (which are asynchronous and therefore require a more complex call context for manipulating async results) and that it also needs to work without CDI (say in plain bus apps). Of course, nothing stops from extending this concept further…. Cheers, Christian On 2013-04-30, at 1:15 PM, Erik Jan de Wit <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > What I like in a lot of security frameworks is that one can secure method > calls with a simple annotation. So my idea was that we could make something > like @RequireAuthentication on the remote interface and that would not allow > the call if nobody is logged in. We could develop something like this based > on the InterceptedCall functionality, but because of the way InterceptedCall > is setup there is no way to make another annotation behave like > InterceptedCall. To make it a bit more clear i cannot define an annotation > like this: > > @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) > @Target({ElementType.TYPE, ElementType.METHOD}) > @InterceptedCall(SecurityInterceptor.class) > public @interface RequireAuthentication { > } > > and have the SecurityInterceptor invoked the only way I can do it is by > annotating the methods with: > > @InterceptedCall(SecurityInterceptor.class) > > Why now have it more like the CDI interceptor api > http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/interceptor/InterceptorBinding.html > > This gives me the ability to lousily couple the annotation with the > interceptor are there reasons for the model that is implemented now? Can we > change it so that it will be more flexible? Or shall we stick with how it's > is now and extend the functionality to make it work with my example > annotation? > > Cheers, > Erik Jan > _______________________________________________ > errai-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/errai-dev
_______________________________________________ errai-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/errai-dev
